redeemer

The Hebrew that is translated as “redeemer” in English is translated the following way in these languages:

In Luba-Katanga it is Mukuji, a traditional term for “Kinsman Redeemer.” “In Luba-Katanga the first word used was derived from the background of slavery. This first word. however, proved inadequate. Mr. Clarke [who worked on the first Luba-Katanga Bible] tells in his own words how he found the perfect term: ‘There came a lad weeping, with body cruelly lacerated, saying to me, ‘See how cruel my master is to me!’ and I said, I will redeem you’. With piteous tears, he cried, ‘You are not able to redeem me. A great price only can be paid for my redemption’. ‘What shall I pay?’ I asked, ‘I can give calico and a gun if need be — I shall certainly redeem you,’ but once more came the cry, ‘You are not able to redeem me, for you are no relation of mine. If you would help me, go to my father and mother, and bring them here with the ransom for my redemption. Only my parents or one of my relatives can redeem me. You may buy me, but I would be your slave’. So, after years of waiting, we found the word Mukuji, which brought to us the significance of the ’Kinsman-Redeemer’.” (Source: Wilfred Bradnock in The Bible Translator 1953, p. 49ff. )

In Tai Dam the translation is “Lord-come-seek-buy.” “This is the Lord who came and sought us, and then bought us for Himself. Just “to buy a person” might imply acquiring a personal slave. But one comes seeking in order to buy is one who is earnestly looking for the straying sheep who is lost in the mountainside in his own sinful wandering away form the Shepherd of his soul.” (Source: Nida 1952, p. 139.)

See also redeem / redemption and next-of-kin / kinsman-redeemer / close relative.

2nd person singular pronoun in Psalms in Garifuna

In Garifuna the second person singular pronoun (“you” in English) has two forms. One is used in women’s speech and one in men’s speech. In the Garifuna Bible the form used in men’s speech is typically used, except when it’s clear that a woman is quoted or in Psalms where the women on the translation team insisted that the form used in women’s speech (buguya) would be used throughout the whole book.

Ronald Ross (in Omanson 2001, p. 375f.) tells the story: “Throughout most of the translation, [the distinctions between the different forms of the pronouns] presented no problem. Whenever the speaker in the text was perceived as a man, the male speech forms were used; and when a woman was speaking, the female speech forms were used. True, the women members of the translation team did object on occasion to the use of the male forms when the author (and narrator) of a book was unknown and the men translators had used the male speech forms as the default. Serious discord arose, however, during the translation of the Psalms because of their highly devotional nature and because throughout the book the psalmist is addressing God. The male translators had, predictably, used the male form to address God, and the male form to refer to the psalmist, even though women speakers of Garifuna never use those forms to address anyone. The women contended that they could not as women read the Psalms meaningfully if God and the psalmist were always addressed as if the readers were men. The men, of course, turned the argument around, claiming that neither could they read the Psalms comfortably if the reader was assumed to be a woman.

“Initially there seemed to be no way out of this impasse. However a solution was found in the ongoing evolution of the language. There is a strong propensity for male speech and female speech to merge in favor of the latter, so the few remaining male forms are gradually dying out. Moreover, male children learn female speech from their mothers and only shift to the male speech forms when they reach adolescence to avoid sounding effeminate. However they use the female form buguya when addressing their parents throughout life. So the women wielded two arguments: First, the general development of the language favored the increasing use of the female forms. Secondly, the female forms are less strange to the men than the male forms are to the women, because the men habitually use them during early childhood and continue to use them to address their parents even in adulthood. Therefore, the female pronominal forms prevailed and were adopted throughout the book of Psalms, though the male forms remained the default forms in the rest of the translation.”

See also female first person singular pronoun in Psalms and addressing God.

redeem / redemption

Click here to view graphically

The Greek and Hebrew terms that are translated as “redeem” or “redemption” in most English translations (see more on that below) are translated in Kissi as “buying back.” “Ownership of some object may be forfeited or lost, but the original owner may redeem his possession by buying it back. So God, who made us for Himself, permitted us to accept or reject Him. In order to reconcile rebellious mankind He demonstrated His redemptive love in the death of His Son on our behalf.

“The San Blas Kuna describe redemption in a more spiritual sense. They say that it consists of ‘recapturing the spirit.’ A sinful person is one in rebellion against God, and he must be recaptured by God or he will destroy himself. The need of the spirit is to be captured by God. The tragedy is that too many people find their greatest pleasure in secretly trying to elude God, as though they could find some place in the universe where He could not find them. They regard life as a purely private affair, and they object to the claims of God as presented by the church. They accuse the pastor of interfering with the privacy of their own iniquity. Such souls, if they are to be redeemed, must be ‘recaptured.'” (Source: Nida 1952, p. 138)

Click or tap here for more translations or “redeem” / “redemption”

In Ajië a term is used, nawi, that refers to the “custom of planting a small tree on land cursed either by the blood of battle or some calamity.” Clifford (1992, p. 83ff.) retells the story: “Maurice Leenhardt tells how he finally arrived at a term that would express ‘redemption.’ Previous missionaries had interpreted it as an exchange — an exchange of life, that of Jesus for ours. But in Melanesian thinking more strict equivalents were demanded in the exchanges structuring social life. It remained unclear to them how Jesus’ sacrifice could possibly redeem mankind. So unclear was it that even the natas [Melanesians pastors] gave up trying to explain a concept they did not understand very well themselves and simply employed the term “release.” So the matter stood, with the missionary driven to the use of cumbersome circumlocutions, until one day during a conversation on 1 Corinthians 1:30, [Melanesian pastor and Leenhardt’s co-worker] Boesoou Erijisi used a surprising expression: nawi. The term referred to the custom of planting a small tree on land cursed either by the blood of battle or some calamity. ‘Jesus was thus the one who has accomplished the sacrifice and has planted himself like a tree, as though to absorb all the misfortunes of men and to free the world from its taboos.’ Here at last was a concept that seemed to render the principle of ‘redemption’ and could reach deeply enough into living modes of thought. ‘The idea was a rich one, but how could I be sure I understood it right?’ The key test was in the reaction of students and natas to his provisional version. They were, he reports, overjoyed with the ‘deep’ translation.”

In Folopa, the translation team also found a deeply indigenous term. Neil Anderson (in Holzhausen 1991, p. 51) explains: “While I was explaining the meaning of the [concept] to the Folopa men, I could see their faces brighten. They said that this was a common thing among them: ‘If someone falls a tree and it tips to the wrong side, killing someone, the relatives of the injured party claim the life of the guilty party. But in order to save his life, his relatives make amends. Pigs, shells (which are still used as currency here) and other valuables are given to the relatives of the deceased as payment for the life of the guilty party. In this way he can live because others stand up for him.’ Full of joy, I began to utilize this thought to the difficult translation of the word ‘redemption.’ Mark 10:45 reads now, translated back from the Folopa: ‘Jesus came to make an atonement, by which he takes upon himself the punishment for the evil deeds of many. He came so that through his death many might be liberated.’ After working on this verse for half an hour, I read it to my friends. They became silent and moved their slightly bowed heads thoughtfully back and forth. Finally, one of them took the floor, ‘We give a lot to right a wrong. But we have never given a human being as a price of atonement. Jesus did a great work for us when he made restitution. Because he died, all of us now don’t have to bear the punishment we deserve. We are liberated.'”

In Samoan the translation is togiola which originally refers to a fine mat. John Bradshaw (in The Bible Translator 1967, p. 75ff. ) explains: “The rite of submission applies in cases of grave sin which demands an extreme punishment: offenses such as murder, adultery or disrespectful behavior towards a chief. Submission is made in expectation of forgiveness. The rite is normally enacted at dawn. The prisoner and his family, or even his whole village bow down in silence before the house of the chief or other offended party. The prisoner heads the group and is covered with a fine mat, offered as his ransom. In other words, he submits himself completely to the authority of those whom he has offended. Many such submissions have been successfully offered and received. Those inside the house will come out, and bring into it those offering submission. The priestly orators speak sweetly and all join in a meal. The fine mat is accepted, while the prisoner is set free and forgiven. He no longer goes in fear of retribution for his sin. (…) If now we turn to the relation between the believer and the Redeemer, we notice at once that the word togiola, literally the price of one’s life, was the word used to denote the fine mat with which the sinner covered himself in the rite of Submission. The acceptance of the togiola set free the prisoner. It was inevitable that togiola should render lutron, ransom, as in Matthew 20:28.”

Other translations include:

  • Manya: “buy” (source: Don Slager)
  • Uma: “freed (from suffering)” (source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “set free” (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)

    • Bariai: “unbind” (source: Bariai Back Translation)

The translation into English also is noteworthy:

“In Hebrew there are two terms, ga’al and padah, usually rendered ‘to redeem,’ which have likewise undergone significant changes in meaning with resulting obscurity and misunderstanding. Both terms are used in the Old Testament for a person being redeemed from slavery. In the case of padah, the primary emphasis is upon the redemption by means of payment, and in ga’al the redemption of an individual, usually by payment, is made by some relative or an individual of the same clan or society. These two words, however, are used in the Old Testament in circumstances in which there is no payment at all. For example, the redemption of Jews from Egypt is referred to by these two terms, but clearly there was no payment made to the Egyptians or to Pharaoh.

“In the New Testament a related problem occurs, for the words agorázō and exagorazó, meaning literally ‘to buy’ or ‘to buy back’ and ‘to buy out,’ were translated into Latin as redimo and into English normally as ‘redeem.’ The almost exclusive association of Latin redimo with payment became such a focal element of meaning that during the Middle Ages a theory developed that God had to pay the Devil in order to get believers out of hell and into heaven.

“As in the case of the Old Testament, New Testament contexts employing the Greek verb lutroó, literally ‘to redeem’ or ‘to ransom,’ do not refer primarily to payment but focus upon deliverance and being set free. But even today there is such a heavy tradition of the theological concept of payment that any attempt to translate lutroó as ‘to deliver’ or ‘to set free’ is misjudged by some as being heretical.” (Source: Nida 1984, p. 114f.)

See also redeemer and next-of-kin / kinsman-redeemer / close relative.

rock

The Hebrew that is translated as “rock” in English is translated in the Chichewa as thanthwe. “Thanthwe” normally is a big stone that spreads over a large area either visible or lying underneath and cannot be lifted or moved. In Chewa religious context, “thanthwe” was a sacred rock which people believed to be the place of worship. This place was safe because it was associated with the presence of the Supreme Being. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)

Lynell Zogbo (in Review and Expositor 2011, p. 279ff.) explains some of the issues with the translation of “rock” in other African languages:

“Despite the interesting points of similarity between African and biblical worldviews, genres, and linguistic structures, there remains a significant number of ‘mismatches.’ One interesting problem concerns the metaphorical expression, ‘rock,’ often used in cries for help to Yahweh or affirmations of trust in him, which are so prominent in the first and second books of Psalms; as well as in certain prophetic passages. While exegetes do not agree about the major semantic traits being emphasized (do they express protection, stability, or God’s unchangeable nature?), all do agree that the metaphor designating the Divinity carries strong positive connotations within a context of adversity or conflict.

“Throughout Africa, however, the notion of ‘rock’ often has very different connotations, and they are not always positive.

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight

“Across the continent, and more specifically in West Africa, large out-jutting rocks are, along with certain large trees and rivers, considered sacred. ‘Genies’ (good and evil spirits) dwell in these locations, where they are invoked and where they receive blood sacrifices. Prayers are offered for riches, happiness, success, fertility, security, etc. Thus, it is not unusual in various regions to see a large grouping of rocks stained with blood, with a smattering of chicken feathers, and other unusual markings – i.e., pure white cotton strips tied around the rocks themselves.

“Prayers offered at ‘the rock’ are often for protection, whether the dangers being invoked are spiritual or material. For example, in Niger, Zarma fishermen (of the Sorko cast) offer sacrifices on rocks jutting out of the river to protect them from dangerous hippos or alligators.

“Given the sacredness of these locations, in some cultures, only certain members of society may be allowed in their vicinity. For example, in Angola these rocks are not visited ‘by just anyone’: they are ‘mysterious.’ Likewise, in parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), these dwelling places of spirits are not accessible to all, but rather only to the initiated or older members of the community. In other cultures, however, stone outcroppings may be a major meeting place, playing a major role in community life, being the place of regular and/or annual sacrifices.

“In the Baoule culture (Cote d’lvoire), the ‘rock’ plays a central role in traditional worship. The word ‘rock’ evokes immediately in all speakers uprooted or displaced. It serves as a spiritual intermediary and a protector. Often this rock is situated near a source of water, facilitating animal sacrifice, which may include chickens, sheep or even a cow or bull, usually on a yearly basis. This rock is also where important alliances are sealed, in the presence of (and by invoking) the spirits. The place is to be the notion of a ‘god,’ as well as a place where one goes to ask for protection from danger. The Baoule expression ‘Let’s go to the rock’ means ‘Let’s go worship/sacrifice’ (to ancestors and/or genies, not God). The rock (yebue or yɔgbuɛ) is in fact considered ‘a little god,’ which is fixed hard, lasting through time, not able to be kept pure at all times, and while all may go to the rock, a number of strict rules protect its sacredness: menstruating women may not go to the rock, ‘normal’ non-sacrificed food may not be eaten there, and pregnant women cannot visit this location on given days (Wednesdays and Fridays!). Finally, it is not permitted to speak evil of this ‘god.’ In some cultures, rocks are associated with important historic events. For example, in one location in DRC, a specific rock is known as the first place a white explorer arrived. It is reported that genies appear regularly at this rock, sometimes in the form of a man, and sometimes as a woman with three breasts. In recent times during the war, genies are said to have appeared at this rock to prevent rebels from attacking a nearby village. These rocks, associated with important ancestors and actors in history have become important places of worship.

“Attitudes towards the ‘rock’ vary from one culture to another and from one language to another. While in some cultures (Doyayo, Cameroon), the rock evokes fear, in others, some speakers say the word ‘rock’ evokes a powerful divinity who answers prayer. In Toussian culture (Gur, Burkina Faso), bits of the larger rock are broken off and taken home from the sacrifice place and hidden in houses, where they will be venerated by future generations.

“In some cultures, the name ‘rock’ may be given to children when they are born. Among the Baoules, for example, a child may be named Yobus or Ysbue. This person may be so named because of the relationship between a particular family and the rock, and the person named ‘rock’ may then ‘represent for his family a force of spiritual importance.’ The person may be feared because of his or her mystic powers that can be used against others. ‘You do not fear this child, man, or woman; you can insult them or disrespect them, but (you must be careful) to not insult or offend this little ‘god’ this person represents.’ If the rock is offended, one must go to the rock, not the person named rock, to ask forgiveness.

“In Baoule culture, the person named ‘rock’ is usually known as someone having a difficult personality. The following advice was given by an old man: ‘Never name one of your sons ‘rock.’ Rocks are hard. If you make the mistake of naming one of your sons ‘rock,’ he will have a difficult personality, hard like a stone.’ 30 When a certain pastor with this name committed suicide, people surmised that: ‘He died because his name was Yobus. Demons took advantage of a moment of spiritual weakness… and led him to commit suicide.’ A village with the name Yobuekro (‘village of stone’) is considered by some to be cursed because of its name. Following its founding, this town never grew and its inhabitants eventually abandoned it.

“In other cultures, ‘rock’ may be part of a name acquired after birth, imposed by others, or assumed by the person himself. Thus, in Worodougou, a Mande language spoken in Cote d’lvoire, some young people call themselves Gbofia, kawa nyanjunghun, ‘the rock, the wrong side of a stone,’ evoking their dependability and hard work. Nothing (no hard task) scares them, so their presence is reassuring.

“In many cultures, rocks are used figuratively to refer to problems that are difficult to solve or to people who exhibit certain personality traits. In Mwan, comparing people to a rock means that they are hardhearted, resistant towards others. Such people are difficult, refusing to forgive or to let others have their way. In Kikongo, a rock may refer in a figurative sense to an obstacle and problem that is difficult to resolve. Thus it is reported that a big witch gave himself the name ‘Scratch the rock,’ meaning that he is invincible and has great spiritual power. Anyone who ‘scratches the rock’ (attacks him) will be in great trouble. In a Christian song in Baoule, believers sing, ‘The big rocks, Jesus uprooted them.’ According to one person, this means that Jesus has driven out strong demons, 35 but it is also possible that it means Jesus has destroyed fetish worship or idolatry.

“In light of these observations, it is clear translators in African contexts are faced with an important question: Can the word ‘rock’ be used in a metaphorical sense to refer to Yahweh, for example, in the verses cited above? Several pastors, especially of Baoule origin, have responded with a firm ‘No!’ One pastor commented ‘The Baoules have a little god (represented by the rock), but this little god is definitely NOT the all-powerful God, Creator.’ Indeed, in the Baoule Bible published in 1998, the ‘rock’ metaphor referring to God seems to have been purposely avoided in the book of Psalms. When the word ‘rock’ occurs referring to God, translators have consistently translated ‘God on whom I lean,’ as in the rendering of Psalm 73:26: ‘the one on whom I lean, it’s you.’

“In Doyayo (Cameroon), a translator notes, ‘it would be hard to understand Rock as a symbol of security and use it to refer to God.’ The translator suggests the possibility of replacing one metaphor by another, using a functional equivalent, soolkolunyo, ‘stick of traveler,’ i.e., ‘walking stick,’ also called affectionately ‘my companion in all circumstances.’ The walking stick is a very strong symbol in Doyayo culture, used in times of danger, for example, when crossing a flooded river, or when warding off an attack. This proposal has not yet been tried out, but it seems a possible solution to a rather complex translation problem in this language.

“Even in cultures where there is a direct link between the rock and traditional African worship, however, some Christians would favor trying to retain this biblical image, introducing it as a new metaphor or ‘reorienting’ a current one. For some Baoule theologians, for example, along with all its other seemingly negative connotations, the rock can be seen as a symbol of solidity and immovability. Thus, it could represent strength and resistance, or someone with an unchangeable nature. One Baoule pastor quoted the idiomatic expression ‘be strong like a rock’ (…). Thus, some suggest it is possible to say in Baoule ‘God is my strong rock’ in a Christian context, despite its negative connotations in a non-Christian one.

“One translator in Dzùùngoo, a Mande language spoken in Burkina Faso, notes that while ‘rock’ refers to a place of (bloody) sacrifice, the word does have positive connotations in everyday life, as a grinding stone for flour, as a foundation of a house, etc. He thus proposes it might be possible to use the word ‘rock’ to refer to God, perhaps with a footnote or a note in the glossary to explain that worship of good and evil spirits is not intended.

“Despite its ‘fetish’ origins, some speakers seem to be able to ‘look beyond’ and transfer the already figurative meaning of ‘rock’ in their culture to another element, namely the unique and all- powerful God. They are willing to widen their worldview and transfer the positive traits of the traditional ‘rock’ or ‘god’ to the unique Divinity. Such a viewpoint may be motivated by a desire to remain faithful to the Scriptural text, but also by the desire to allow readers access to the biblical metaphors as they occur in the Hebrew text. Such ‘intrusions’ into or changes in the semantic make-up of a given word and concept are very common linguistically speaking: semantic ‘extensions’ or changes of meaning in words of all types are everyday occurrences in languages around the world. But it is clear, if Bible translators take such as a step, for example, concerning the rendering of a highly ‘explosive’ word like ‘rock,’ they will inevitably set in motion a semantic change in their own mother tongue, a change which, given the written nature of the Scriptures, will probably remain in effect for generations.

“In some languages in Africa, a literal rendering of ‘rock’ does not seem to pose a problem. In Guro, for example, proverbs, songs, and names provide evidence that the notion ‘rock’ carries semantic traits that fit the biblical use: strength, resistance, security, and permanence. Thus, a Guro proverb says, ‘An elephant will always see you, unless you are behind a rock.’ (…)

“As mentioned above, it remains to be seen which exact semantic trait is in view in each case of the appearance of the word ‘rock’ in the Psalms or in its other occurrences in the Bible. When it co-occurs with words like ‘refuge,’ it seems to indicate a place to hide; but in other contexts, it may carry the meaning of stability.

“In some African languages, hardness is equal to strength. Thus in Yocoboué Dida, Godié and Guiberoua Béte, Kru languages spoken in Cote d’lvoire, instead of calling God a ‘strong’ or ‘hard rock,’ it may be better to call him directly ‘strength,’ though this removes the rock metaphor, one of the important praise names for God in the Psalms. Despite the mismatch between the biblical ‘rock’ (the Lord), and ‘rock’ in many African languages, the idiomatic expression ‘having one’s feet on a rock,’ does seem to be an effective metaphor, posing no problem in translation. In Worodougou, for example, a similar metaphor appears in a woman’s song, where a woman praises her husband as a source of strength in adversity:

“A big wind comes, my hand grabs a strong tree, A big wind comes, my feet are on a hard rock.

“Thus, despite the possibility of ‘mismatch,’ there are many cases where the notion of ‘God as rock’ will communicate effectively. This study underlines, however, the need for translators to consider not only the semantic component of key terms in their biblical contexts, but also to remain vigilant and to anticipate potential misunderstandings due to cultural backdrop. Though it is hard to imagine a Bible in Africa without the powerful metaphor and strong image, ‘God, my rock,’ in some cultures and languages, this may indeed be a necessary choice. Referring to the All Powerful Yahweh as ‘my rock,’ may confuse readers and immediately evoke the worship of spirits rather than God!”

See also Peter – rock.

complete verse (Psalm 19:14)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Psalm 19:14:

  • Chichewa Contempary Chichewa translation, 2002/2016:
    “The words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart
    should be pleasing before your eyes,
    You Jehovah, my Rock and my Salvation.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
  • Newari:
    “O LORD! the one who saves me,
    who gives me refuge!
    May the words that come out of my mouth
    and the prayers of my heart be pleasing to you!” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon:
    “May-it-be that what I say and think pleases you (sing.), LORD, my refuge/one-that-protects/and savior.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • Eastern Bru:
    “Oh God! Request you help that the words I say and what I think are in line with your heart, because you are like a rock for me, and you are the God who saves me.” (Source: Bru Back Translation)
  • Laarim:
    “You give the words of my mouth and thinking of my heart,
    to make you glad,
    LORD, you are my mountain, and you are my savior.” (Source: Laarim Back Translation)
  • Nyakyusa-Ngonde (back-translation into Swahili):
    “Yote ambayo ninasema yakufurahishe,
    na mawazo yangu yakupendeze.
    Ee BWANA, ee mwamba wangu,
    tena ee mwokozi wangu.” (Source: Nyakyusa Back Translation)
  • English:
    “O Yahweh, you are like an overhanging rock under which I can be safe; you are the one who protects me.
    I hope/desire that the things that I say and what I think will always please you.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

servant / slave

While the Greek term doulos in the New Testament and ‘ebed in the Old Testament refer to slightly different concepts (unlike in New Testament Judea in Old Testament Israel and Judah, Hebrew servants/slaves were required to be released after six years of labor and, regardless of when they started their servitude, all Hebrew servants were to be automatically freed during the year of Jubilee), translation issues are somewhat similar.

Joel Baden (2025, p. 65ff.) says this about the Hebrew term used in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible:

“The English words ‘servant’ and ‘slave’ have decidedly different connotations. ‘Servant’ has the sense of ‘employee.’ ‘Slave,’ by contrast, carries with it the ideas of an owned and controlled body, of violence and dishonor. The connotation of ‘servant’ can verge on the positive; ‘slave’ is predominantly negative. How a reader of the Bible understands the identity of a character or the relationship between one character and another or the world of ancient Israel depends significantly on whether the word ‘servant’ or ‘slave’ is used. In Hebrew, however, there is but one word underlying every occurrence of ‘servant’ and ‘slave’ in our modern translations. The distinction between the two exists only on the level of interpretation.

“It is not a matter of mere nomenclature. Take the story of Genesis 24, in which Abraham sends his servant off to find a wife for Isaac. The servant — though the main character of the passage — has no name and is identified only by his title, which he even uses to introduce himself: ‘I am Abraham’s servant,’ he says (Genesis 24:34, Jewish Publication Society). This is often read as a warm story about a devoted servant — usually imagined to be relatively old — who carries out the elderly patriarch’s final wishes. How does it change, how do we reimagine it, when we read all thirteen mentions of Abraham’s servant as, in fact, Abraham’s slave? We know Abraham has slaves: His ‘servant’ even says so in this very chapter in the very next verse: ‘The Lord has greatly blessed my master, and he has become rich: he has given him sheep and cattle, silver and gold, male and female slaves, camels and asses’ (24:35, JPS). Yet generations of translators, interpreters, and readers have failed to connect the slaves (the property with which God has blessed Abraham) and the servant — the slave who is the protagonist of this same story.

“When slaves are turned into servants, the Bible itself is changed. Our revulsion at the institution of slavery is kept at a distance from the biblical text that stands as our religious heritage. The Bible is protected, albeit from itself. Slavery is minimized, or worse: The King James Version, notably, does not translate ‘ebed as ‘slave’ a single time. The result? Some KJV readers have denied that there is any slavery in the Bible whatsoever. Yet the word ‘ebed appears around 800 times in the Bible. That’s 800 moments when a slave, and the existence of slavery in ancient Israel and the biblical text, has been erased.

“The social role that we associate with the term ‘servant’ didn’t exist in ancient Israel. Slaves, however, did. Israel knew what it was to be a slave, and Israel knew, too, what it was to own a slave. And thus Israel uses the language and metaphor of slavery again and again to express the basic notions of obedience, of power disparity, of bodily control and the absence of agency. Samuel says to Yahweh upon being called, ‘Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening’ (1 Samuel 3:9, JPS). ‘Let my lord go ahead of his servant,’ Jacob says to Esau in Genesis 33:14 (JPS). Rendered as ‘servant’ in every translation, this is a sort of formally obsequious, self-abnegating speech. While literal slavery is not at stake in these sorts of expressions, the metaphorical reference to the relative status of slave and master is lost when it is translated as ‘servant.’

“So, too, when those figures who are the ‘ebed to a king are referred to as ‘courtiers,’ ‘officials,’ ‘attendants,’ ‘soldiers,’ ‘subjects,’ ‘envoys,’ ‘ministers,’ or even sometimes simply ‘men,’ of the king. These are all translations of the same word, and the instinct to specify their distinctive roles in the royal court is understandable. Yet in doing so, translations obscure the actual language with the connotations that it presents: subordination, threat of violence to one’s person, absolute control over will and agency. And so, too, when it is not a human king but God to whom one is said to be ‘ebed. In the book of Joshua, God states, ‘My servant Moses is dead’ (1:2, JPS) — we are relatively comfortable with the idea of serving God but perhaps less so with the idea of being God’s slave. Yet the qualities of obedience, subservience, and loyalty — and the implicit threat of punishment for the lack thereof — are part of this picture as well. One might point to the way this language is picked up in the New Testament in the phrase ‘slave of Christ’ in 1 Corinthians 7:22.

“If ‘servants’ and ‘slaves’ are not understood to be equivalent — and in modern English it is safe to say that they are not — then every time that the word ‘ebed appears, a choice has to be made by the translator. The diminishment of the very word ‘slave’ in English translations of the Hebrew Bible results in the diminishment of the idea and reality of slavery in the Bible and in the world that produced it. Though there is no debate to be had about whether there was slavery in the Bible and in ancient Israel, a lay reader of the text in translation might well wonder.

“Our ears, and eyes, have become accustomed to seeing the word ‘servant’ in the Bible. ‘Slave’ often sounds wrong, inapt, almost harsh. Yet it is just this discomfort that signals how important the change is. Whenever we encounter the word ‘servant’ in our English translations, we should be obliged to ask why it says ‘servant’ and not ‘slave’ — and what difference it would make to our reading of the text as an individual, as a community, and as a culture if we were instead to read ‘slave.’”

Ruden (2021, p. lviii) says this about the Greek term in the New Testament:

“In Judea, servitude was sui generis and could be complicated, and accordingly the Greek vocabulary in scripture is varied. But there appears to be no basis for sugarcoating the word meaning a chattel slave in nearly all Greek literature, doulos. It is unlikely that the internationally oriented authors of the Gospels didn’t mean what their peers meant by the word — ‘slave.’ Also, the English word ‘servant’ is too vague for the array of servitors (including trusted house slaves and personal attendants), military and administrative subordinates, and ritual helpers the Greek of the Gospels distinguishes.”

Some English New Testament translations (Ruden 2021, Hart 2017, The Orthodox New Testament 2004) have consistently used slave for the Greek doulos but no Old Testament translation consistently translates ‘ebed with only one term.

In a number of leading German translations, including the Catholic Einheitsübersetzung (1980 / 2016) and the Protestant Elberfelder Bibel (1871 / 2006), BasisBibel (2021), as well as the translation by Luther (all editions) use the term Knecht throughout. Knecht is an old-fashioned term for a low-class, often agricultural servant with little or no social mobility, a position that is somewhat located between Diener (“servant”) and Sklave (“slave”). The only times these versions specifically don’t use Knecht is where slavery is specifically in the focus (such as Leviticus 25:44 or Philemon 1:16).

addressing God

Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed.

Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or modern English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.

As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator 2002, p. 210ff. ), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.

In these verses, in which humans address God, the informal, familiar pronoun is used that communicates closeness.

Voinov notes that “in the Tuvan Bible, God is only addressed with the informal pronoun. No exceptions. An interesting thing about this is that I’ve heard new Tuvan believers praying with the formal form to God until they are corrected by other Christians who tell them that God is close to us so we should address him with the informal pronoun. As a result, the informal pronoun is the only one that is used in praying to God among the Tuvan church.”

In Gbaya, “a superior, whether father, uncle, or older brother, mother, aunt, or older sister, president, governor, or chief, is never addressed in the singular unless the speaker intends a deliberate insult. When addressing the superior face to face, the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́ or ‘you (pl.)’ is used, similar to the French usage of vous.

Accordingly, the translators of the current version of the Gbaya Bible chose to use the plural ɛ́nɛ́ to address God. There are a few exceptions. In Psalms 86:8, 97:9, and 138:1, God is addressed alongside other “gods,” and here the third person pronoun o is used to avoid confusion about who is being addressed. In several New Testament passages (Matthew 21:23, 26:68, 27:40, Mark 11:28, Luke 20:2, 23:37, as well as in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well) the less courteous form for Jesus is used to indicate ignorance of his position or mocking.” (Source Philip Noss)

In the most recent Manchu translation of 1835 (a revision of an earlier edition from 1822), God is never addressed with a pronoun but with “father” (ama /ᠠᠮᠠ) instead. Chengcheng Liu (in this post on the Cambridge Centre for Chinese Theology blog ) explains: “In Manchu tradition, as in Chinese etiquette, second-person pronouns could be considered disrespectful when speaking to superiors or spiritual beings. Manchu Shamanist prayers avoided si [‘you’] and sini [‘your’] for this very reason. To use them for God would be, in Lipovzoff’s [one of the two translators] words, ‘the most uncouth and indecent way to speak to the Almighty — as if He were a servant or slave.’ There was also a grammatical problem. In Manchu, si and sini could refer to both singular and plural subjects. For a faith that insisted on the singularity of God, this was potentially confusing. By contrast, repeating ama removed any ambiguity.”

In Dutch, Afrikaans, Gronings, and Western Frisian translations, God is always addressed with the formal pronoun.

See also formal pronoun: disciples addressing Jesus, female second person singular pronoun in Psalms.